Should Roger then complete the calendar year Grand Slam, he joins Budge and Laver as the only men to date to have done so.

My view is that if he achieves the above, then he deserves the accolades and deserves his place in history as one of the greatest ever. Regardless, I believe he will be considered as such, but achieving the calendar year Grand Slam could see him hailed as the greatest ever.

Do you want Federer to achieve his dream and become an undisputed great on Sunday?

oneandonlyhsn

06-09-2006, 07:30 PM

As a fan of Roger I would love for him to achieve it, and I would love to see tennis history made. Geez how long agao was it when we had someone make a GS, its about time

Dirk

06-09-2006, 07:30 PM

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!! :worship:

DrJules

06-09-2006, 07:36 PM

Laver achieved the calender grand slam twice and was not eligible for 5 years between the grand slams owing to the ban on professionals. Roger would still have a long way to go to match that.

tennisgal_001

06-09-2006, 07:45 PM

Laver achieved the calender grand slam twice and was not eligible for 5 years between the grand slams owing to the ban on professionals. Roger would still have a long way to go to match that.

If Laver played in this era, would he have achieved the GS twice? heck, would he have done it once? I'm questioning his physical ability here more than anything else...

LeeHesh

06-09-2006, 07:49 PM

If he beats Nadal, he'll have set himself up as one of the greatest ever. It's not like he's getting an easy opponent. It'll be like an Olympics special--"how he came back from the dead" thing.

I don't think he needs a calendar slam to validate his position among al -time greats, just Roland Garros.

prima donna

06-09-2006, 07:50 PM

Wasn't the Aussie Open played on Grass back in Laver's day ?

DrJules

06-09-2006, 08:57 PM

Wasn't the Aussie Open played on Grass back in Laver's day ?

Yes.
However, major difficulty has nearly always been winning on clay (RG) and grass Wim). Most players weakest grand slam is on grass or clay. Borg is almost unique in being comfortable on grass and clay, but having most difficulty on hard.

bad gambler

06-09-2006, 11:23 PM

If he wins he will be the greatest ever

bad gambler

06-09-2006, 11:23 PM

Wasn't the Aussie Open played on Grass back in Laver's day ?

correct

bad gambler

06-09-2006, 11:24 PM

If he wins he will be the greatest ever

"IMO"

scoobs

06-09-2006, 11:30 PM

I think if he can get all 4, whether consecutive or not, and gets in to double figures on slams overall, he should be considered the greatest ever.

There are so many differences to the Laver era it's hard to compare - 3 slams played on grass and 1 on clay compared to now when they're all on different surfaces with their own characteristics. A much more physical style of play and a deeper field of opposition.

We can't compare the eras effectively, really, but if Feds can capture the French at some point and perhaps match or overtake Sampras in slams won, then he's got to be up there at the very top.

Action Jackson

06-09-2006, 11:45 PM

Fair question for sure and if he wins it. It will be a good thing and he only has to do it once and he will be considered one of the greatest.

Corey Feldman

06-10-2006, 12:17 AM

Greatest of all time...
to win all 4 slams thesedays, in a row.... with the different surfaces and end Nadal's... his nemesis, record run on clay.

Howard

06-10-2006, 12:40 AM

I think the most you can say is that a player is the best of his own time. Calling someone the best of all time is purely subjective and you can make a pretty good case for Laver, Borg or Sampras as the best of all time. Now if Federer wins all the majors at least twice and more total majors than Sampras and stays number one longer, then I’d probably agree.

PamV

06-10-2006, 12:42 AM

If Federer wins the French Open on Sunday, then he joins Perry, Budge, Laver, Emerson and Agassi as one of the men to achieve wins at all 4 Grand Slam events.

Should Roger then complete the calendar year Grand Slam, he joins Budge and Laver as the only men to date to have done so.

My view is that if he achieves the above, then he deserves the accolades and deserves his place in history as one of the greatest ever. Regardless, I believe he will be considered as such, but achieving the calendar year Grand Slam could see him hailed as the greatest ever.

Do you want Federer to achieve his dream and become an undisputed great on Sunday?

Actually I think if he were to achieve this he would be called the greatest ever not just one of the greatest because the field is a lot deeper now than when Laver, Perry, and Budge were playing. Back in those days tennis was only played on grass and clay and everyone used wooden raquets which allowed Serve/Volley tennis to win on Clay. A player didn't have to be as versatile as to switch to hard court and a player didn't have to face the power game like today which requires more athleticism.

Agassi won all four but not consecutively and also most of Agassi major wins were AO which doesn't carry as much prestige as Wimbledon. When Agassi won RG he was facing Medvedev in the final who was ranked #100 at the time. It was an amazing final but I hardly think Medvedev was ever at the level Nadal is.

Roger is currently considered one of the greatest right now and his career isn't over yet. Not too long ago there were many comparisons with Roger and Pete and many who called Pete the greatest of all time for having won 14 majors. Pete never won RG yet he's still considered the greatest by many.

PamV

06-10-2006, 12:45 AM

This poll seems kind of flawed because a person could want to answer "Yes" to more than one of the choices.

betterthanhenman

06-10-2006, 06:00 PM

If he wins he will be the greatest ever

Can't agree with anyone that says that.

Cervantes

06-10-2006, 06:03 PM

options 2, 3 and 4

I'd say one of the greatest, up there with Laver, Borg and Sampras. Of course he is the best tennisplayer ever, but that doesn't make him the greatest.

betterthanhenman

06-10-2006, 06:08 PM

options 2, 3 and 4

I'd say one of the greatest, up there with Laver, Borg and Sampras. Of course he is the best tennisplayer ever, but that doesn't make him the greatest ever.

Edberg and Sampras were better grass court players than Federer in my opinion. So I do not believe he would have matched his achievements in previous decades.

The reason I say that is simple. I think Wimbledon is used as the springboard for him. It keeps him winning Slams consitently and gives him the confidence to go on to the US Open and win there too. If he was not as good as guaranteed to win at SW19 each year, I think he would find the other Slams harder to win also.

Of course this is all pure speculation, but it's fun to speculate. :)

Art&Soul

06-11-2006, 03:54 AM

"IMO"
IMO too :D if he wins and complete the Roger Slam this year :)

Metis

06-11-2006, 04:08 AM

IMO no-one should be called the greatest ever before the end of his/her career. You never know what will happen in the future. He is definitely on his way but I think it is too soon.